The Labour Government

hcblue95 said:
Children have the highest poverty rates in the UK. Pensioners have the lowest poverty rates in the UK. If Labour can take from pensioners and give to children surely this is a good thing?
Click to expand...

Wouldn’t a good thing be lift them out of poverty be they kids or old folk? Rather than sacrifice one for the other?
 
metalblue said:
Wouldn’t a good thing be lift them out of poverty be they kids or old folk? Rather than sacrifice one for the other?
Click to expand...
I agree completely I'm a strong proponent for a larger welfare state. Given that the current option is tory or red tory and net welfare was cut in the most recent budeet, don't you think it is better to take from the more well off demographic (pensioners) and give to the poorer though?
 
Chris in London said:
But so what? International law does not require that a refugee makes their application for refugee status is made in the first safe country they arrive in otherwise most of them wouldn’t be able to claim in France either. There is nothing wrong in an applicant saying “I have friends and family in country X which I don’t have in country Y where in any event I don’t speak the language.”

So for “you should have applied in France” to be a thing you need to be contemplating withdrawing from a whole raft of international treaties. If that’s what you think the country should do that’s up to you but (a) it won’t, at least not under the current government and (b) just saying “should have applied in France, send them back” is just naive.
Click to expand...

I was merely commenting on the “France is not safe” post.
 
hcblue95 said:
I agree completely I'm a strong proponent for a larger welfare state. Given that the current option is tory or red tory and net welfare was cut in the most recent budeet, don't you think it is better to take from the more well off demographic (pensioners) and give to the poorer though?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. Unfortunately they didn’t do that. They took off poor pensioners as well.
 
Ohrodneyrodney said:
Very safe and very welcoming.
Click to expand...
Which isn't the point really. Refugees and asylum seekers is a problem for the whole of Europe, it's no more Frances resposibilty than it is Denmarks,no one country should be expected to take more just becaus of geography.. The answer is a european wide policey with all European countries working together for solutions and providing asylum to those accepted.While not perfect we decided to opt out of whatever system was in place. Nobody to blame for that except ourselves.
 
Chris in London said:
But so what? International law does not require that a refugee makes their application for refugee status is made in the first safe country they arrive in otherwise most of them wouldn’t be able to claim in France either. There is nothing wrong in an applicant saying “I have friends and family in country X which I don’t have in country Y where in any event I don’t speak the language.”

So for “you should have applied in France” to be a thing you need to be contemplating withdrawing from a whole raft of international treaties. If that’s what you think the country should do that’s up to you but (a) it won’t, at least not under the current government and (b) just saying “should have applied in France, send them back” is just naive.
Click to expand...
So let's say I've escaped Afghanistan, I've trekked many miles and now I am in Turkey, explain how I could apply for asylum in countries in Europe whilst in Turkey?

The answer is I can't so I will have to walk to France or wherever where I can then claim asylum. You're saying that refugees have a right to claim asylum anywhere so is the entirety of Europe in breach of these international treaties too?

In terms of policy alone what is the UK doing differently to France or Europe and if not why should the UK have a different policy that goes above and beyond what they're doing?

Iceland are in the EEA and are Schengen participants, they took 5,000 refugees last year, we have taken over 200,000. Why aren't people demanding that they put a border post in France too? The simple answer to all of these questions comes down to geography and not international law.
 
inbetween said:
So let's say I've escaped Afghanistan, I've trekked many miles and now I am in Turkey, explain how I could apply for asylum in countries in Europe whilst in Turkey?

The answer is I can't so I will have to walk to France or wherever where I can then claim asylum. You're saying that refugees have a right to claim asylum anywhere so is the entirety of Europe in breach of these international treaties too?

In terms of policy alone what is the UK doing differently to France or Europe and if not why should the UK have a different policy that goes above and beyond what they're doing?

Iceland are in the EEA and are Schengen participants, they took 5,000 refugees last year, we have taken over 200,000. Why aren't people demanding that they put a border post in France too? The simple answer to all of these questions comes down to geography and not international law.
Click to expand...

It might be to do with having a population smaller than the city of Bristol.

5000 is about 1.25% of their population.

Not really a sensible point.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vic
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.